Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Article 277 TFEU
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article presents the conditions and principles developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union for raising the plea provided for in Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter TFEU or Treaty) for the review of the legality of acts of EU law. This objection commonly referred to in the legal writing as the plea of illegality allows challenging an act of general application which constitutes the basis for an individual act. This review may be carried out after the expiry of the (two-month) period provided for in Article 263 TFUE to declaration of acts of EU law as void, also by individual persons and entities that do not meet the conditions of the so-called Plaumann test. Unfortunately, this rule is subject to numerous limitations, especially in the view of the principle developed in case-law, according to which the admissibility of an plea of illegality depends on the prior submission of an action for annulment. The paper also analyses the conditions for the admissibility of raising the plea of illegality by Member States and EU institutions (so-called privileged applicants).
EN
The remedy referred to in Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has not been extensively elucidated in Polish nor in foreign legal writings, remaining rather off the mainstream of academic discourse. This seems mainly due to the fact that it is an ancillary (incidental) remedy, and in order to successfully benefit from it, a series of formal and legal requirements should be met, which mostly do not originate directly from the Treaty provisions, but have been developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The remedy, if it were formulated in a transparent and explicit manner in Article 277 TFEU, could play a key role as a model review for any type of implementing measures (i.e. for both individual decisions and acts based on legislative acts) which determine the legal position of private persons and entities. The inherent consequence of drafting the legislation in a general and abstract manner is that legal defects in legal provisions do not normally manifest themselves until after they have been applied in practice. The unclear legal structure of this measure determines its use in formulating an alternative plea in the form of an additional request in the pleadings, forming the basis of an action for annulment against an act of EU law (lodged on the basis of Article 263 TFEU). However, there are some grounds for the exception stipulated in Article 277 TFEU to be applied in all kinds of proceedings, therefore its limitation to the actions for annulment alone would run counter to the objective of that provision. This remedy also plays its specific role in employment cases involving elements of compensation as well as in intellectual property cases, but its use in actions for damages cannot be ruled out. In this regard the plea is being described as an indirect remedy. Indeed, from the beginning of its activity, the Court has held that a plea of illegality cannot be the basis of a new form of an autonomous action (does not constitute an independent right of action ) or an obligation for the national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling.
PL
Artykuł przedstawia przesłanki i zasady wypracowane w orzecznictwie Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE (dalej TSUE lub Trybunał) podnoszenia zarzutu określonego w art. 277 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej (dalej TFUE lub Traktat) w celu przeprowadzenia kontroli zgodności z prawem aktów prawa unijnego. W literaturze powszechnie określa się go jako zarzut bezprawności. Pozwala na kwestionowanie aktu o zasięgu ogólnym, stanowiącego podstawę wydania aktu indywidualnego. Kontrola może być dokonywana po upływie (dwumiesięcznego) terminu przewidzianego w art. 263 TFUE na stwierdzenie nieważności aktów prawa unijnego, również przez podmioty indywidualne, które nie spełniają przesłanek tzw. testu Plaumanna. Zasada ta podlega jednak licznym ograniczeniom, zwłaszcza wobec wypracowanej w orzecznictwie zasady, zgodnie z którą dopuszczalność zarzutu bezprawności zależy od uprzedniego złożenia skargi o stwierdzenie nieważności. W artykule podjęto też kwestię dopuszczalności podnoszenia zarzutu bezprawności przez państwa członkowskie i instytucje unijne (tzw. skarżących uprzywilejowanych).
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.